Skip to main content

View Diary: "[A] completely dumbass idea from the start." (155 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Let's compare two hypothetical worlds (55+ / 0-)

    1.  Every has a gun, for his or her own "protection."

    2.  Nobody has a gun, except for police officers and national guard members.  

    In which would most of us feel safer?  Maybe getting back to the customary view of the Second Amendment, instead of the gun manufacturers' Wild West wet dream view,  would be the best idea to curtail the piling up of dead innocents.

    Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

    by Dallasdoc on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:58:57 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  "Gun" is about as descriptive as "car" (12+ / 0-)

      Are you suggesting that ALL manner of firearms - shotguns and hunting rifles - are in need of disappearence as well?

      Sort of needs to be clarified.

      I imagine you mean "assault-style rifles and handguns in general", but we can't assume. .

      And cops do as much killing as the bad guys do, and they get away with it. They don't make me feel very safe whether others are armed or not. Cops are dangerous.

      As always - I don't own real guns - my concerns lay along the lines of crafting regulations that ACTUALLY work, not that simply look good on paper..

      The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:07:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am pointing in a general direction (53+ / 0-)

        Wayne LaPierre argues for more guns to keep us safe.  I pose the contrary argument:  would you feel safer with a lot fewer guns, or with more guns?  The answer is pretty self-evident to most of us, I'd say.  

        Once we agree on the general direction to move, let's ignore the LaPierre's and discuss what to do to head in the right direction.

        Personally, I'm in favor of liability insurance requirements for every gun, to transfer the social costs of guns onto the owners rather than the victims and society at large.  A Bushmaster with an extended magazine would cost a lot more to insure than grandpa's hunting rifle or a securely locked handgun for target practice.  Arsenals would be prohibitively expensive to insure.

        Let the NRA fight the insurance lobby in Congress, and we'll see who wins.

        Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

        by Dallasdoc on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:16:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Now that's an interesting notion (14+ / 0-)

          which I hadn't seen suggested before.

          Strong as the gun lobby is, the insurance lobby is orders of magnitude stronger.

          “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

          by jrooth on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:35:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I am 100% on board: (15+ / 0-)

          And, everyone in the NRA should be since their non-starter retort to the "guns kill people" observation is "cars kill people, should we outlaw them also?"

          We have laws mandating cars be sufficiently insured for liability.  Ergo, insurance on firearms should be a no-brainer.  But, wait until the NRA hears that.

          I am tired of hearing arguments about how "responsible gun owners" should get a pass on regulation.  Guns are easily stolen, mishandled and often bought in response to a threat.

          IF gun owners were required to buy insurance that got increasingly expesive - for the type of gun, or as the result of a DUI or non-violent misdemeanor, then they will be forced to prove their worthiness and perhaps take more care in seeing them stored under lock and key.

          Blessed are the peacemakers, the poor, the meek and the sick. Message to Repug Fundies: "DO you really wonder "what would Jesus do?" I didn't think so.

          by 4CasandChlo on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:50:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What would the personal responsibility crowd say? (12+ / 0-)

            Insuring your deadly toys so you bear the costs they create for society, rather than victims and everybody else bearing those costs, is unlikely to be popular among gun owners.  TFB.  Nobody else likes bearing those costs either.

            Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

            by Dallasdoc on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:58:48 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm definitely in favor (3+ / 0-)

              of requiring at LEAST $1 million in liability insurance for ANY concealed carry permit. Indemnifying the CC permit holder covers any type of handgun s/he is carrying in public. Insurance for any and all "assault weapon" military knock-offs that are not useful for hunting could be considered as well, but I'd rather see them banned because nobody really needs one.

              At the same time, I'd argue against costly insurance for hunting/target rifles or shotguns. Hunting on public game lands requires a state permit in all states I am aware of, renewable annually for every type of game allowed to be hunted.

              Deal is, criminals with guns wouldn't carry the requisite insurance because they don't care about gun laws. And if somebody snaps, any type of firearm could be used to commit mass murder. Truth is, most gun fatalities and injuries are caused by cops and/or criminals. Cops are minimally responsible if one has enough money to sue the jurisdiction through appeals, you'd never get a collectable settlement from a criminal.

              Meanwhile, there are rural dwellers who actually do need guns, even in 2012 not everybody lives in a city. Tens of millions of law-abiding citizens own guns all their adult lives and still manage to die of old age without ever having committed murder/mayhem with their firearms. I see no reason to disarm them, or to require insurance for legitimate use.

              •  All guns are dangerous (9+ / 0-)

                The danger can be mitigated or enhanced by the type of gun and the owner's behavior.  If we're going to insure guns, we should insure all of them.  Let the insurers price risk actuarially, which is their business.  Rural hunters who keep their guns secured need not pay much.  Suburban assault rifle fetishists who want to stockpile ammo would find their insurance bills skyrocketing, which could make them think twice.

                I agree that some types of guns and ammo should be banned, but that won't take existing stocks out of people's hands.  Pricing insurance to stratospheric levels for the most dangerous ordnance would do a lot more in that area.

                Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

                by Dallasdoc on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:36:55 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I doubt you could fly (0+ / 0-)

                  discriminatory price fixing on liability insurance for guns past the judicial system. I have a family full of professional performers, a few of them work with fire. In order to do that we have to maintain a $2 million liability policy in addition to excluding whole acts from particular venues (have to get past the fire marshals too). It is not very expensive, just part of the cost of doing business that when spread across the number of gigs during a year's time amounts to less than a buck.

                  So I'm in favor of insurance for all CC permit holders. And all 'Assault Weapons' grandfathered in renewal of the sales/trade ban. Requiring it for all guns in all situations is overkill enough to draw serious legal [Constitutional] challenge. Price fixing wouldn't fly past even state courts, would get shot down [pun intended] well before it ever got to the SCOTUS.

                  Just being realistic, rather than throwing inanities at a serious problem that needs serious debate and consideration.

                  •  Discriminatory price fixing? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    artmartin, Kevskos

                    Actuarial risk pricing is what insurance companies do.  It's a completely legal business practice.  If legislation mandated that liability insurance be required, and gave insurance  companies the right to price risk according to type of weapon and ammunition owned, I see no reason why it wouldn't hold up in court.  Insurance companies would be delighted to enter this line of business, and would no doubt help ensure it held up.

                    Don't know where you get "price fixing."  That sounds like a pejorative label that describes your attitude more than the proposed insurance.

                    Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

                    by Dallasdoc on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:00:22 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You said "stratospheric levels," (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Samulayo

                      not me. I mentioned liability insurance we as a business must carry because some of our acts work with fire. Fire is a rather dangerous thing, can kill lots of people in a short amount of time just like guns can. Even more in certain circumstances, and the wounded don't get out with mere puncture scars.

                      That insurance - 2 million dollar's worth - doesn't cost $200 a year. THAT is the actuarial risk assigned by the insurer to the likelihood that someone who isn't us might get burned during a given appearance. If you do the numbers on guns owned versus guns used to commit murder, the risk is (I would guess) about the same or less. Thus if you fix the cost of this insurance to the gun owner at MORE than what the risk to the insurer justifies, it would probably not be allowed. Really.

                      You admit the goal of requiring insurance would be to keep not-rich people from owning guns. You'd go into it with the intention of pricing said insurance at "stratospheric levels" so people wouldn't be able to afford it. We are talking about a right enumerated in the original Bill of Rights. Such a plan would never pass Constitutional muster, I'm just making that clear. Until and unless the second amendment is duly rescinded or there's a SCOTUS that will okay onerous restrictions to its exercise, that's plain never going to happen.

                      Realistic.

                      •  I wrote that on the assumption (6+ / 0-)

                        That actuarial analysis of the risks of those types of weapons would lead to high pricing, especially for multiple weapons.  I don't suggest active discrimination, just proper risk pricing.  That ought to do the job.

                        Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

                        by Dallasdoc on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:26:47 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Well $200 per year would be a lot (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Joieau, artmartin

                        for a gun typically valued at less than $1000.

                        And even if it's only $50 per year per gun, that would add up pretty quick for people with big arsenals.

                        “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

                        by jrooth on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:31:49 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Well, I also happen to know (0+ / 0-)

                          some arsenals I'd dearly love to make illegal or so expensive as to be seriously restrictive. But I'm not sure that's workable either. The insurance deal isn't going to work if it's assigned to individual guns. They are inanimate objects - I cannot get liability insurance for my chainsaw no matter who I go to, because insurers don't insure inanimate objects apart from vehicles, which are in motion [dangerous] usually only when somebody's behind the wheel. My homeowner's liability clause could cover chainsaw-related incidents if I care to pay the rider on that. It would not cover murder by chainsaw, in all likelihood.

                          Your car insurance is assigned to the car, but you are the one covered, along with any spouses/kids/whoever happens to be driving per your policy. I am having some trouble envisioning a gun insurance policy that covers anyone who ever happens to be using the gun, but it might be possible. I guarantee you that if the gun is being used by any listed holder or thief in an illegal manner to murder some people, the policy will have an exemption.

                          •  you would need to have a title system as well (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Joieau
                          •  True, an aspect I hadn't considered. (0+ / 0-)

                            Which amounts to registration, and many states don't require registration. And even in states that do require registration, there are 'grandfathered' weapons that are exempt.

                            SCOTUS has recognized limitations on federal law due to the regulation requirements of states and municipalities being non-federal. There are MORE restrictions on federal law in this area than state/municipal. Given that it's a right enumerated by constitutional amendment.

                            Yet many state and municipal laws restricting guns and gun use are ostensibly constitutional and are allowed. I do not think the feds are going to be able to draft restrictions that pass constitutional muster that go beyond what is already present. The "right of the people" will remain so long as amendment #2 remains. While one can argue that clause-1 of the amendment supersedes clause-2, there is no guarantee any given SCOTUS would rule to confirm.

                            We don't have to obtain governmental license or title in order to freely exercise our religions, our freedom to speak or write or publish. Nor do we need license to justify the privacy of our papers, property or effects. Or our right not to incriminate ourselves in court. Or... Well, you get the picture. We have a right to own and carry (on private property or designated game lands in season with license) firearms. For whatever purpose, protection being first and foremost. Banning the right to keep and bear firearms for the purpose just ensures that the use statistics accrue to police and criminals while the rest of us are defenseless.

                            Given the relatively recent ruling (where?) that police do NOT have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the public, where does that leave us?

                    •  Clarification... (0+ / 0-)

                      I do not know how the insurer statistically justifies the less than $200 price tag on the annual policy, other than to note from personal experience that a member of the public is so unlikely to be injured by a dropped juggling torch that they compete to offer the lowest price policy to those of us who need it in order to offer the entertainment.

                      We've been doing this for very close to 30 years. Nobody has ever been injured by fire from any of us, including our fire jugglers/eaters.

                      We also have had guns, still have grandpa's shotgun. Nobody has ever been injured by birdshot, buckshot or bullets from any of them, ever, in the 40+ years that we have owned guns. Literally tens of millions of gun owners can say the same thing.

                •  Oh... and (0+ / 0-)

                  yes, all guns are dangerous weapons. Even BB guns can put out an eye, easier even than scissors. Being a weapon is the design and purpose of guns.

                  It's just that many people have an honest need for weapons where they live (not subject to your approval). I don't use my shotgun to kill the several pit vipers we have to kill every year, just in the cleared and kept areas of our property. For them I have some regular and specialized beheading devices. Machete, swords, tile scrapers, hoes and a nifty-looking antique bank scythe. Any of which could be turned on a human and wreak deadly havoc. So could the chainsaw, come to think of it, as well as the hatchets, axes and mauls...

                  Though I can't mow my lawn with the shotgun, I could defend the sheep who do mow my lawn with that shotgun. And defend the Border Collie and GSD who protect the livestock for a living. From whatever threatens them, which is what that tool is designed for - its purpose. It protects me, my family and visiting friends as well if need be, from all similar threats.

                  Admission: We, our property and our livestock are in more danger from human predators than from starving hounds, coyotes, rabid coons/skunks, etc. Just like in the city (but with less frequency). But while I've actually had to shoot a few critters, I've never shot a human. Who thus far seem quite able to interpret the purpose of the shotgun when it's visible and usually leave the area without further convincing.

            •  Attractive nuisance ordinance (0+ / 0-)

              If there is liability for easy access to swimming pools, then why not firearms?

          •  Guns would be concentrated to the rich. (0+ / 0-)

            They are no saner. This is a false solution. Accidents don't hurt the gun.

          •  even more stupid (0+ / 0-)
            cars kill people, should we outlaw them also?
            plastic bags kill people.
            A baseball bat can be used to assault someone; does that make every baseball bat an assault weapon? Should we ban them? What about knives? Rocks? Should we ban plastic bags? They’re used to smother people sometimes.

            No? Awfully selective definition of “assault” you have.

            dumbassery from dark4181 on The Verge in response to this story.

            New York newspaper posts map with names and addresses of handgun permit owners

            I'm a blue drop in a red bucket.

            by blue drop on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:05:41 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  In today's news - A 72 Year Old Doctor (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            artmartin, Kevskos, 4CasandChlo

            left his hand gun in the men's room at LL Bean.

            Luckily an employee found it and not some kid that was unattended by an adult.

            I fall down, I get up, I keep dancing.

            by DamselleFly on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 11:11:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Getting rid of ALL guns would be good. (5+ / 0-)

        The people that have em can't handle em.

        RTKRC - Right to keep and raise children. Trumps RTKBA - Right to keep & bear arms.

        by hideinplainsight on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:20:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  erroneous thinking. (5+ / 0-)

          There are 300 million guns in america and only a mere sliver of a fraction of that population of gun owners ever do anything anti-social.

          I could own guns and Id never go hurt anybody. I'm just not the sort of person that dreams of hurting others (at least in general). Conversely, I have studied martial arts my whole life, if I want to hurt somebody, I'll do it manually.

          You banners bark too loudly at the wrong tree. And your idea won't make you any safer from those people, like the Webster shooter, who violate the laws. You need to know that.

          The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

          by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:27:38 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have 2 guns, whigh I bought to keep the a (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RJDixon74135, Dallasdoc, Smoh, a2nite

            relative who developed schizophrenia and thought he knew where the "voices" were coming from, I also got him into treatment.

            Never loaded, carried or shot them. Booth are secured and equipped with trigger locks.

            RTKRC - Right to keep and raise children. Trumps RTKBA - Right to keep & bear arms.

            by hideinplainsight on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:53:31 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  As far as you know now, you would (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            qofdisks, hideinplainsight

            never go hurt anyone. Hopefully you will escape extreme mental illness, or whatever else motivates otherwise stable law abiding citizens from snapping. But there's just no guarantee.

            I think the national story, culture and identity plays a great role making people safer, even from would be law breakers. "Control" reaches farther than the text of legislation.

            The same manner in which you train your body and discipline your mind, so does society. You ought to know that.

            •  I wouldn't do anything like what we read about. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Joieau

              I am just not built like that.

              Now.... break into my house in the night (or even the day) and things would be markedly different.

              gun banners make a point of not seeing any reality of personal defense. One is allowed to defend hearth and home. You are. No need to go all whiny about 'castle doctrine" or whatever - it's YOUR home and YOU CAN DEFEND IT.

              I know some of the banners have this odd philosophy that celebrates being a victim - I do not have this value.

              Just because I believe in robust self-defense doesn't mean I want to whack children. I know there are those kossacks who want to directly blame any gun owner, however rule-abiding - as a potential killer, and that is just stupid.

              The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

              by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 09:58:42 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  I think we really need to take a hard look at (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              a2nite

              alcohol as it clearly falls well-withing your idea of

              whatever else motivates otherwise stable law abiding citizens from snapping. But there's just no guarantee.
              Alcohol fuels most of the mayhem in this country. Murders, rapes, car accidents: some 30-40,000 Americans a year - dead because somebody who thought they could handle their alcohol actually couldn't.

              No guarantess and PLENTY of data to show alcohol is a huge threat to America despite its huge popularity.

              And then there;s tobacco......400000 dead Americans each year, but nobody really counts those deaths. Many of them are lingering and families get time to adjust.

              We will not even consider banning tobacco or alcohol under the same guise as "saving lives".

              The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

              by xxdr zombiexx on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 10:07:07 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  But we tax the hell out of it (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Kevskos

                and highly regulate it's manufacture and distribution.

                Maybe we could have a Las Vegas for gunners. "Yosemite Sam Park"

                I think in the "Give me liberty or give me death" state you can only buy liqueur from government distribution centers.

                Auto insurance? Gun insurance? Ammo insurance.

                How about a 200 billion dollar manufacturer settlement for the idiocy that is 'guns don't kill people, people do"

                I understand your reply was to a "banner". But let's talk about the price we pay for the other liberties we enjoy, like alcohol, also.

                asdf, I'm not built like that either. My reverence for life and peace, thankfully and willfully, grows every day.

                No one who falls victim to mental illness plans it.

          •  I like the insurance idea, (3+ / 0-)

            coupled with a strong buyback program for those who can't afford insurance. And the insurance on an AK47 should be very dear. There are morons around these parts who have AR-15s and food stamps. Those are the guns most likely to be sold at a swap meet or behind a bar.

            "For people who profess to revere the Constitution, it is strange that they so caustically denigrate the very federal government that is the material expression of the principles embodied in that document." Mike Lofgren

            by GANJA on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:49:40 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Three Rules (13+ / 0-)

        I came up with this a while back. I have since seen other versions of it, so it seems to occur to people on a regular basis. There are Three Rules to a good law.

        1. It addresses the problem. If you want to limit drunk driving, passing a law about seat belts is stupid.

        2. It addresses ONLY the problem. I can limit drunk driving by banning all cars, and it would solve drunk driving. If necessary (and it would be! sigh.), we can explain why this is a Bad Idea.

        3. It is enforceable. I have to write the law in such a way that there are people, tools, and methods available to carry out the law. Is carrying out the law even scientifically possible? Who decides if you are drunk? Do they have the training? Do we need to invent Breathalyzers? Do they have funding and time for all of this?

        We don't write laws while in the grip of strong emotion and blind faith. We use logic, reason, and debate. We write laws after long, serious discussion and flogging our draft laws to near death to come up with the best, most effective laws that we possibly can.

        Less "WAAAAH!", more progress.

        by IndyGlenn on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:33:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  A thousand times ^ THIS. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rockhound, happy camper

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:45:03 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Seatbelt laws weren't about drunk drivers (6+ / 0-)

          From National Motorist Association (NMA);

          In the 1980's, auto manufacturers were faced with a federal mandate to install "passive restraint" safety devices to protect vehicle occupants in the event of a collision. Also known as the "air bag mandate," this requirement was vigorously opposed by all the major vehicle manufacturers.

          Claims of tremendous expense, dubious reliability, and impracticality were amplified by dealers and even auto enthusiast groups. Some foreign manufacturers implied that the air bag mandate would preclude them from staying in the U.S. market. To the rescue came the U.S. Dept. of Transportation (USDOT) in the persona of Elizabeth Dole.

          A deal was cut and it went like this: If the auto industry could get mandatory seat belt laws passed in enough states such that 80% of the population would be covered by such laws, the air bag mandate would be put on indefinite hold.

          Therein followed a 100-million-dollar auto industry campaign to pass mandatory seat belt laws. It was a lobbyist-safety organization feeding frenzy.

          Read the link for more. The Insurance industry opposed it.

          Just in time for Christmas! Support Netroots For The Troops with your on-line purchases.

          by TexDem on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 06:55:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  People Are Extremely Eager To Break #2 (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Robobagpiper, happy camper

          The more nonspecific and the greater the unintended consequences, the more it attracts purity trolls.  See the debate over Prop 37 (GMO labeling).  Knowing anything about the subject automatically makes someone the "enemy."  

          There’s always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby

          by bernardpliers on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 07:01:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  What do you think about beefing up gun (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Miggles, Smoh

          ownership responsibility?  

          I suggest strictly enforced continuity of possession laws.

        •  Notice this touchstone banishes NRA ideas (0+ / 0-)

          Arming teachers comprehensively violates #2 and has at most little standing under #1.

          Recommended.

        •  Notably, the status quo fails all three. (0+ / 0-)

          And the gun rights advocates cheer because they presume that the status quo, being a problem and not a solution, escapes any need for justification.  

          One piece of free advice to the GOP: Drop the culture wars, explicitly.

          by Inland on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 08:20:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well, we could ban cars/trucks (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Silvia Nightshade

          and go back to horses. Kind of a mess, but horses aren't generally drunkards. And some of 'em do know the way home... §;o)

    •  Except "nobody would have a gun except police" (0+ / 0-)

      would never happen.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site